The other night I was watching t.v., as per usual. And, from nowhere, I see a commercial saying that "net neutrality" is nothing but a gimmick that will end up costing the average consumer more money. And, that it more or less was a bad thing. Sadly, the average citizen in the U.S. will likely believe this message since they generally aren't intelligent enough to question what the all mighty t.v. tells them is right or wrong. Besides, according the the commercial it's going to cost them money. So of course it's a bad thing.

And sadly, it doesn't look like the net will remain "neutral".
Clicky.

So yeah, I've got no idea where the hell I was going with this. And no, I'm not some random drone sent here by them to get support. I just remembered the commercial from last name and figured that intelligent people may help?
*shrug*

It's the beginning of the election season. I guess that commercials dismissing net neutrality as a gimmick that 'costs taxpayers money' is merely a hint of the sordid Lowest Common Denominating to come.

The net neutrality people has Alyssa Milano on their side ... HOW COULD THEY LOSE?

Yes ... let's allow corporations decide what we get to see on the interweb, I foresee no conflicts of interest there. It's going to be as great as when they de-regulated power in California!

Personally, I'd prefer the government to police the internet, they're usually too stupid to get anything done. So the status quo remains in place._________________bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.

Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.

Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.

Yes, but this cost is already being paid on the content provider end: The more traffic your site gets, the more it cost you to maintain. Period. This is sinply an excuse for the network providers to make more money without really having to do anything. _________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.

Oddly enough the "series of tubes" metaphor is actually pretty appropriate given the architecture of networks. That doesn't mean it'll take days for an internet to reach your office because the tubes are clogged, though.

Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.

Yes, but this cost is already being paid on the content provider end: The more traffic your site gets, the more it cost you to maintain. Period. This is sinply an excuse for the network providers to make more money without really having to do anything.

My thoughts exactly. Besides, why slow down the most popular sites so that less popular sites load faster? Isn't that the best way to piss off the most people?_________________fight

Nice ad. Of course, there are good arguments for both sides, since the anti-neutrality people could point out that high volume sites/traffic, like bittorent and youtube could slow down the internet in general and cause congestions in the tubes. The owners of the cable want to be able to say 'youtube gets a little slower, so sites at least load at a reasonable pace'.

But then again, if the anti net-neutrality people have to claim net-neutrality would cost extra money, while it's basically the status-quo (albeit shaky status quo)...you have to wonder whose side you want to be on.

Yes, but this cost is already being paid on the content provider end: The more traffic your site gets, the more it cost you to maintain. Period. This is sinply an excuse for the network providers to make more money without really having to do anything.

My thoughts exactly. Besides, why slow down the most popular sites so that less popular sites load faster? Isn't that the best way to piss off the most people?

They wouldn't care as long as the premium price sites would have to pay without net neutrality brings in more revenue than the loss of users going to other providers.